The Law Office of Michelle Anderson Barth is a boutique federal criminal defense office located in Vermont.
Some of the tougher cases Michelle Anderson Barth has litigated in federal court are highlighted here. These trial and appellate results are not meant to suggest any particular result for prospective clients. Every case is different and results cannot be predicted. Nonetheless, Ms. Barth has over eighteen years of training, experience, and success in achieving justice for clients in federal court.
Ms. Barth appealed her client’s convictions claiming that his conviction for Attempted Hobbs Act Robbery did not qualify as a predicate felony crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and (j). Ms. Barth did not represent the defendant before the district court. A three-judge panel for the Second Circuit initially denied her client’s claims and affirmed his convictions in an unpublished summary order. Ms. Barth then pursued further review before the U.S. Supreme Court. That petition was granted and the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment and ordered it to reconsider its original decision. After reconsidering its decision, the Second Court then issued a published opinion vacating her client’s convictions (the most serious counts) and remanded his case to the district court for resentencing. Significantly, the Second Circuit held, for the first time, that an Attempted Hobbs Act Robbery could not serve as a felony predicate crime of violence for a 924(j) conviction (causing the death of a person with a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence).
Ms. Barth appealed defendant's sentence claiming that the district court committed plain error during sentencing in a Hobbs Act robbery resulting in murder case in which the defendant received a 34 year sentence. Ms. Barth did not represent the defendant before the district court. The Second Circuit ordered a remand for resentencing to address the error. See United States v. James Smith, 2017 WL 4994463,---- Fed. Appx. ---- (2d Cir 2017).
On direct appeal, Ms. Barth filed an opening brief asserting, among other claims, that appellant's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. After reviewing Ms. Barth's brief, the government agreed to a remand. The Second Circuit then ordered a remand to allow the appellant to withdraw his guilty plea, thereby vacating his felony conviction. See United States v. Martinez Granados, Case No. 15-4156, Hon. Judges Calabresi, Livingston, & Rakoff (by designation).
Ms. Barth appealed the defendant’s sentence claiming that an unlawful condition of supervision had been imposed after a conviction for 7 U.S.C. 2156 (a)(2)(A) (Attending Animal Fighting Venture). After reviewing Ms. Barth’s Opening Brief, the government agreed and moved for a remand. The Court remanded the case to vacate the condition challenged on appeal. United States v. Cruz, Appeal No. 18-662 (Hon. Judges Kearse, Winter, and Pooler)
Not guilty in drug smuggling/distribution case in which Ms. Barth's client was arrested with over 7 1/2 tons of marijuana. At the time, this was the largest drug seizure ever made at the Tecate, California Port of Entry. See United States v. Rodriguez, Case No. 03CR0738 (S.D. CA 2003), HON. THOMAS J. WHELAN
For News Story:
http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/metro/20030306-9999_1m6potbust.html
Ninth Circuit remands for resentencing in illegal entry prosecution after holding that convictions for California Penal Code §§ 288(c)(1) [lewd and lascivious acts] and 12021(a)(1) [felon in possession] are not categorical crimes of violence warranting 16 level enhancement. See United States v. Ortiz-Ortiz, 373 Fed. Appx. 738 (9th Cir. 2010)
Mistrial ordered after jury was deadlocked (ten not guilty, two guilty) in drug smuggling/distribution case where over twenty-two kilograms of marijuana was hidden in a tire of the client's truck. The indictment was subsequently dismissed on motion by the government. See United States v. Brittain, Case No. 05CR1240 (S.D. CA 2005), HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ
Remanding for district court error in failing to make specific findings required before imposing supervised release condition requiring that defendant submit to physiological testing and medication as directed by the probation officer. See United States v. Sperling, Case No. 09-50667 (9th Cir. filed Jan. 10, 2011) (not published in Federal Appendix or Reporter)
Won a civil action on behalf of plaintiff father in state court under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The judge ordered the kidnapped child back to France and within 48 hours the child was home residing with the father. Bocquet v. Fabbri, Case No. D507581 (Super. Ct. CA 2007), HON. DAVID B. OBERHOLTZER.
Not guilty in drug smuggling/distribution case where over one hundred kilograms of marijuana were found inside a secret compartment built into the vehicle Ms. Barth's client was driving. See United States v. Castillo Rivera, Case No. 03CR3221 (S.D. CA 2003), HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES
Not guilty in alien smuggling trial where Ms. Barth's client was driving a car with an undocumented person hidden in the dashboard and allegedly confessed. See United States v. Medina Torres, Case No. 02CR2390 (S.D. CA 2002), HON. JUDITH N. KEEP
Photo: "Michelle Anderson (Barth) Celebrates Big Win!" Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc.